2016 IEEE/AIAA 35th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC) 2016
DOI: 10.1109/dasc.2016.7778094
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Quantifying pilot contribution to flight safety for normal and non-normal airline operations

Abstract: Accident statistics cite the flight crew as a causal factor in over 60% of accidents involving transport category airplanes. Yet, a well-trained and wellqualified pilot is acknowledged as the critical center point of aircraft systems safety and an integral safety component of the entire commercial aviation system. No data currently exists that quantifies the contribution of the flight crew in this role. Neither does data exist for how often the flight crew handles non-normal procedures or system failures on a … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
2

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This paper provides an evaluation of crew configuration influence across the entire array of normal and non-normal operations using a current-day flight deck configuration during two-crew, reduced crew, and single pilot operations. Specific review of each non-normal and its specific effects and influences are contained in [29,30,31,32,33].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This paper provides an evaluation of crew configuration influence across the entire array of normal and non-normal operations using a current-day flight deck configuration during two-crew, reduced crew, and single pilot operations. Specific review of each non-normal and its specific effects and influences are contained in [29,30,31,32,33].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Following the above discussion, the proposed AECL design delivers promising results. First, significant time reductions in checklist completion times (net time to completion) and decision-making were found, which would allow the pilot to better meet non-normal event time pressure [2] and deal with higher troubleshooting times found for SPO conditions [14]. Moreover, comparable experienced workload and situation awareness was observed, but the measurements were realised within a shorter time window.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As the scenario is set up, the question is whether it is authorised to conduct an RNAV approach with the incurred failures and land safely on the runway. Other literature indicates that with the same failure, RNAV approaches are no longer approved when AC transfer bus 1 and the APU are inoperative [14]. However, as per the operating manuals for some of the airline companies of which participants took part in the experiment, the minimum RNAV requirements were not violated.…”
Section: Choice Of Airportmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This same planned route of flight was used for the entire two days of data collection. Weather and visibility were designed to affect any diversion decisions [5].…”
Section: Simulatormentioning
confidence: 99%